According to this Ars Technica Article it passed, with a few amendments, 14-4. Folks, now is a good time to get busy writing your Senators.

I have a podcast to do tonight. After that, I will do some reading on the amendments and give you some more information. I still would encourage you to read my article on writing your representative and get active on this one. There are a few things that have not changed. The Bill still wants to create another tax funded department to enforce IP. In other words, you would not neeed worry about civil action from the RIAA or the MPAA. The Justice Department would do it for them.

The reality is just this simple:

1. The state of Copyright and Intellectual Property have reached a point of Future Shock. The Laws do not fit the technology of today.
2. It is true that, we need laws and revision of laws to protect IP. One way or another it is going to happen. The industry is making their desires known.
3. The RIAA spent $1,460,000.00 and The MPAA $2,280,000.00 in lobbying in 2007. This is how they are making their desires known.
   
4. Read number three again… We need to write to our Senators if we even have any hope of being heard.

Thanks for reading.

I don’t know if I like the name "Chrome" as much as "Gbrowser".. Nonetheless, if Google make is work with all its various services in the right way, I feel they can quickly grab some market share. Although every one seems it is going to be aimed at Internet Explorer, I am more curious as to what impact it will have on Firefox.

If any of you manged to download Chrome please comment and let us know here. Seems the closest I can get to a download is a picture of a leaked screen shot which just makes me want to try it more! Just release it already please!

Back on 26 July, 2007, I first posted here about what I dubbed the "dancing baby case". (Others are also referring to the case the same, I have no idea who first used the term. I take no credit for the phrase.) To sum it up:

1. Stephanie Lenz posted a 29 second video to YouTube of an adorable child bopping to "Let’s Go Cray" by a certain artist with a serious identity crisis.
2. Some, in my opinion, zipperhead at Universal who removed his brain the night before and forgot to reinsert it before going to work thought it prudent to send a "DMCA takedown notice" to YouTube. (I am certain Universal suffered irreparable damages in sales on the decade old song for the kid was just way too cute.)
3. The EFF decided to take up the case based on "Fair Use" and freedom of speech. (full release available here)
4. On 21 September, 2007 Universal filed a motion to dismiss. This is followed by motion after motion after motion. You can look in more detail at the EFF page on this case.
5. Almost a year later, I heard the case was scheduled for court.
6. Thursday, August 21, 2008 while on lunch break amidst a very hectic day I got a slim bit of information that the case would proceed and I posted a promise to my readers to follow up.

Today is follow up day.

What does this all mean? It means that a key decision is going to be made regarding an important issue regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Universal actually told the court that they need not consider "Fair Use" when issuing such "DMCA takedown notice". Universal, the defendant in this case, still wished the case dismissed. As I will explain further, this would be, in my opinion, a victory for Universal. Fortunately for sake of "Fair Use", that motion has been denied.

DMCA is and acronym for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I feel this act is intended to deal with the new era of digital media and how it can facilitate the violation of the rights of copyright holders. I also feel that copyright is at the point of future shock and our current laws simply lacked the foresight of where technology has taken us in terms of the production and distribution of intellectual property. Also my opinion, the current state of copyright and intellectual property rights is about as useful as a mule driven carriage on the Autobahn.

Keep in mind that this all came to be from the same government that first brought us income tax to us as a "temporary tax". Personally, I see Social Security vanishing way before I have to work until April 23, 2008 to cover my Income Tax for the said year. The world changes; faster every second. All jesting aside, it is only going to get harder to keep up. Our legislators are simply more likely to lack foresight. They are just as human as the rest of us.

This applies to the DMCA in a Lumpy-tangent-like manner because, as I understand it, it did not specifically address the issue of "Fair Use". I feel that in an era of ever increasing content production growing increasingly fast in terms of the common person being able to generate content it is an grievous error of judgment. No one really saw it coming. Well, actually some did, but they were just not listened to enough.

The reason that a dismissal would be a victory is actually tied into all of this. The Act requires that, for the lack of a better word, the host of any violating material must remove it when they receive a "DMCA takedown notice" is required by law. There is no explicit requirement that the sender must consider "Fair Use". If the case were simply dismissed, the issue would remain, at the very best, unresolved. It may also give the sender the potential to go on a rampage.

Consider the following fictitious example…

Let us all assume that I, Lumpy the Cyber Junkie, am driving along in my car. I am using a camera to record my road trip, listening to the radio and using EDVO to actually distract myself while driving while using voice to text to remain in my humble IRC channel over at WyldRyde. Suddenly a huge F5 tornado apears while the lyrics "it’s the end of the world as we know it" blares over my radio. I am picked up bounced about, tossed skyward higher than a Cedar Point ride while managing to belt out seven Hail Marys prayers in .2 seconds, crash to the ground harder than a bad NASA Mars landing and no one will ever have to tolerate my rambling post at lockergnome ever again… but there is ground breaking data about being sucked into a funnel. It seems likely that it may even help predict tornadoes.

Extent the absurdity of this example to assume that i somehow manged to have the video automatially posted. What could happen next?

The "DMCA takedown notice" follows, the data is taboo and not allowed. Tornado prediction suffers a major set back, 10,000 ground living insects, two squirrels, one camera, one EDVO card, one fictitious no-name car and a certain Lumpy are now lost and sealed to eternity without any hope of a reprise… for naught. More or less, it is just as if it never happened.

Now, regarding the example did I:

• Call up the radio station and request the song? Certainly not, I never said I had a cell phone. I doubt Stephanie Lenz planned her video either.
• Did I toss chicken feathers and bones, snort the right amount of eye of newt and dance like Prince to summon the cloud of death? If you believe so, I suggest you seek professional help. It was, although fictitious, a spontaneous life event. I am confident that the same is true for Ms. Lenz.
• Did I intentionally plan the recording and distribution of the video to harm the intellectual property owner of the said song?
• Or was I just sharing my life experience with others as the new technology of the day allows?

I hope you get my point. I also have another thing to say. Mr. Prince, all jesting aside, I honestly respect you as a performer and a musician. I followed your work until "Love Sexy" and feel that "Controversy" and "Sign of the Times" are two of the best albums ever recorded in this era. I think you are one of the best composers, entertainers and musicians of this era. I would be surprised if history recorded it otherwise. I also understand the following statement to ABC news in October 2007:

Prince believes it is wrong for YouTube, or any other user-generated site, to appropriate his music without his consent. That position has nothing to do with any particular video that uses his songs. It’s simply a matter of principle. And legally, he has the right to have his music removed. We support him and this important principle. That’s why, over the last few months, we have asked YouTube to remove thousands of different videos that use Prince music without his permission.

As I have done so in the past, I feel it important to mention that I do not in any way shape or form endorse piracy. That material, as some of his lyrics state &qout;belongs to Prince&qout;, but if you are that bent about it… Get your own private stream. However, when your label issue a "DMCA takedown notice" for a song that is intellectually owned by someone other than you, how does that not make you look like a hypocrite? I think your success has gone to your head. Mr. Purple Rain, I think if you actually did a fan based, and not money based, podcast you would be surprised. Less than half a minute of partially audible music in the background is not ripping you off.

A blanket right to issue "DMCA takedown notice" is not the answer. If pirates are to be held accountable, so should the senders of "DMCA takedown notice". "Fair Use" is law. It is just as simple as acting responsibly and honestly. If Prince is so bent on controlling the use of his music, maybe he should simply demand his own private radio stream. The technology is certainly there. I also feel the technology is here to totally bypass the RIAA for royalties but that is another issue. (very likely another post as well) Why should we all have to worry about when any given radio station plays it while we are documenting our lives? I think the only message you clearly sent is that we should shun your music and ask our radio stations not to play it.

Universal now has 20 days since the 20th of August to respond. I am going to be watching what happens with this. Feel free to comment and thanks for reading.

The post received a few comments and I am informed that Senators received a few letters. Thanks to those who did so. I though it might be wise to do a short follow up on writing letters to Representatives. As it is often so, there are enough good pages on the said topic. I also would like to say that this is in now way a comment on the letters you readers already sent. It is more of a typical Lumpy after thought.

The first decent link for drafting letters to your Representatives is over at About.com. It has the basic formality expected and how to refer to bills and resolutions… Something I believe I borked yesterday.

In my opion, the best information for writing, especially on this topic is over at the EFF site.

I wasn’t there for two minutes when I realized I committed a major blunder. I usually still do the old "snail mail" thing. According to the EFF information, that is bad. I quot:

Because of the post-9/11 security issues, it can take up to THREE MONTHS for postal mail and package delivery services to get through to legislators and their staffs. All incoming mail and parcels are subjected to thorough analysis for bombs, poisons and biological agents like anthrax. This means that sending physical letters is, in 2002 and for the forseeable future, practically useless for activism purposes. The same goes for sending mail to the White House.

The article also states that many legislators still do not really take e-mail seriously. Seems the best thing is actually a phone call or a fax. I think perhaps the most important bullet list is aptly titled Important Notes and immediately below that lies a great list of "Do’s and Don’ts".

For the purpose of the topic discussed yesterday, there are two very relevant items. (Before I continue, I wish to state that I have not yet finished reading either of the resolutions. If I misrepresent something please leave me a comment.) The first being HR 4279, commonly known as the "IP PRO Act". The name is very misleading. The bill is intended to allow stiffer fines for professional and/or criminal copyright violators.

I still think that the bill is ludicrous. There is no one out there that would trust the RIAA to draw a line like that. In my opinion, they have already proved that by flooding the courts with "sham litigation" (…and I am not the only one who uses that term. I know of at least one Judge who used the same quoted term in his decision.) It would also create a tax payer funded new government agency to deal with copyright infringement. I think the RIAA and MPAA are doing enough damage to the consumer with out our tax dollars aiding in their misguided efforts.

HR 4279 passed the house with only 11 opposed and 12 not voting. That is a bad sign. Also, the Representatives who introduced the said resolution received over 30 thousand dollars in campaign funds from, guess who? Yeah the RIAA. This resolution needs to be stopped (as in fail passing) in The Senate. You can check on the current status of the resolution at Open Congress.

I am pretty sure that the contribution level is not much different in the Senate although it is somewhat harder to track. This means that much screaming needs be done on this matter. It also means that you can focus on only your Senators. By the way, if you wish to see who got how much from the RIAA check out this post at The Consumerist.

The other resolution that needs to pass is the "Internet Radio Equality Act" or HR 2060. This piece of legislation is intended to make it fairer for Internet Radio and needs to pass. It is an attempt to reverse the unfair royalty rates recently passed. It seems that our legislators are dragging this bill through committees at the moment and has not been voted on yet. This means you should contact both The House and The Senate. You can follow the progress of the bill at this page at Open Congress.

Thanks again for reading but, more importantly, thanks for writing.

I have a hectic day at work today and a conference call scheduled as soon as I am off work. If I can dig up more for you, I will. If any of you hear anything further, please leave word in a comment.

I was almost starting to believe that people like Ray Beckerman, Cory Doctorow and groups like the EFF and boycott-RIAA were beginning to have an impact. I even found a great deal of humor in this Onion News Story. My joy was short lived… I returned home to this and this.

I know I am a naive. I should have seen it coming. They will just switch gears and tactics. These dogs are so dirty that they actually do learn new tricks. Now they are lobbying to pass a law that will allow them to seize your home. I am under the impression that they will somehow scheme to work with the NSA and simply start seizing laptops, phones and media players "just in case there is anything on em". The "PRO IP Act" is nothing like the name implies. According to this article at the EFF it described as follows:

… the PRO IP Act is just another in a long line of "one-way ratchet" proposals that amplifies copyright without protecting innovators or technology users. One provision, entitled "Computation of Statutory Damages in Copyright Cases," seems aimed at allowing the music industry to threaten even higher statutory damages in its campaign to sue filesharers. Copyright law currently allows the RIAA to seek statutory damages per album, while the new law would allow them to seek damages per song. Under the new limits proposed by the PRO IP Act, someone who downloads each individual track from Guns N’ Roses’ 12-track Appetite for Destruction album could face a maximum statutory penalty of $360,000; as opposed to the current limit of $30,000 for the album.

The bill will also create a taxpayer funded federal agency to police intellectual property. Now considering that almost every Senator and Representative has received funds from the RIAA, I am sure that this new agency will honest, forthright and really represent the citizens. I am sure that they would in no way be some type of police force for the RIAA and MPAA. Yeah Right!

I also know that I often confuse people with my demeanor. I am a sarcastic imp. Folks this is a serious matter, all jokes aside. Your Senators need to hear from you on this. Please go this contact info site and drop them a line and/or letter. That is unless you trust an organization that uses unliscenced investigators, seems to have a real hard time explaining how their investigative tactics actually identify individuals, has sent violation notices to printers, and accused the dead and people who don’t even own PCs of pirating. Of course, you could decide to do nothing now and just fight them in court. Keep in mind that their 05-06 tax returns indicates that they doled out over 17 million in legal fees per year so you should start saving now.

By the way, if you would like to use the logic that you do not download and are, therefore, safe, I suspect you are wrong. Spending the last few days reading over "expert witness" disposition and information regarding how they identify a violator, I am pretty much agree with several judges. They are doing nothing more than creating speculation.

It is likely that due to how often I only view it in the reader that I missed an interesting feature of the site. At the very bottom of the individual entries, there is a long list of quotes. Here are my top five:

• "The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
• "Merely making a copy available does not constitute distribution….The statute provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to distribute “copies” of their works to the public “by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. …106(3). Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a “distribution” under …106(3) has not taken place."
• "Plaintiff … must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement….However, …. Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation."
• "Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian “suspension of disbelief” to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member’s Internet files can be equally harmful…..Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
• "[W]ithout actual distribution of copies…. there is no violation [of] the distribution right." 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007); see also id. N. 10 (collecting cases); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007)(affirming the district court’s finding "that distribution requires an ‘actual dissemination’ of a copy")"

Sorry for not putting in the Judge or Case but it just didn’t lay our nice. They are all quotes taken from the referenced site and I would encourage you to go there and look. Another thing I should mention is that this is one of those blogs where the comments are well worth reading. This blog has over 3,000,000 page views, which makes for a large community knowledge and opinion base. Feel free to find your favorite quote over at this blog and post it comment here with it. Thanks for Reading.

You can grab the power point presentation over at the link Mr. Ives mentions. Here are just a few of the 20:

• Access My Library - 29 Million Articles Online
• Scoople makes all the advanced search features of Google easier

I am not going to give the whole list or comment much on this. I just think most of the links are great. You have 18 more to look over and decide for yourself. (You also have two more good feeds to subscribe to if you wish.) Thanks for Reading.

Seems that we may get to see what the courts actually think of the "dancing baby" case. As I mentioned a year ago, the EFF responded to the bogus copyright case. The case is now nearing trial. Of course, doing what any litigant would do if they are facing a loosing battle, Universal has requested the case be dismissed. I hope that does not happen.

One of the first feeds I check when I wake is Recording Industry vs The People. This morning I saw this. The case, at the moment, is scheduled for Friday.

I hope the case proceeds. I hope that the judge reads Universal the riot act. In my opinion, removing a 29 second clip of a child dancing to a song in the background is protecting nothing. I feel it is more like harassment or agitation. It is not the action of a responsible organization protecting the rights of an artist (or whatever he wishes to be called at this time). I think these are more like tactics we would see in organized crime or the Gestapo. They protected nothing and attacked the consumer and innocent.

Seriously though, I feel it is great that the EFF is going to attempt to see this through. I feel this case is a great example of fair use and not, in any way, a violation of copyright. I am glad to see that, in my opinion, the courts finally seem to be tired of this "submit to us via litigation" tactic that the recoding industry is using as a business model.

Besides once the court sees how cute that kid is, Universal is going to look so dumb it will be an entertaining thing to follow. I don’t know how fast this thing will proceed and I will be away most of this weekend but I will do my best to follow up on it here. Thanks for reading and please feel free to comment.

Ohio resident Steve Eves is an auto mechanic by day and a very serious model racketeer by night. Steve is building a scale Saturn V to commemorate the 40th anniversary moon launch. From the looks of the photos, I wonder when he sleeps. According to the same article;

"If Eves’ rocket flies, many in model rocket circles believe it would be the heaviest hobby rocket ever launched."

The local news story had my interest up and after a few Google searches, I had some more appreciation of just how large this thing is. According to a post over at rocketry online. The 1:10 scale Saturn V is going to be over 1600 pounds and 36 feet tall. Hopefully he will be able to continue to fund this monster project he started constructing in 2007.

Over at this three page Ohio.com article, Mr. Eves states he is about halfway funded for the 13,000 dollar motors he will need to launch his hobby 5000 feet into space.

Pretty kewl stuff in my opinion and kinda has the "Astronaut Farmer" feel to it. I know I will be checking in at Rockets Magazine’s Saturn V Project Page. Rockets Magazine is sponsoring the project and also has a nice gallery of photos of the progress. I hope he can actually launch this in 2009 as planned. Best regards in your project Mr. Eve’s!

With 24 million views of Chocolate Rain, a Dr. Pepper and McDonald’s giving him ad spots, I would reckon I am not alone. He was also in the Weezer Video Pork and Beans and even did an acoustic version of the tune with Brian Bell.

The thing I like the most about this 25 year old man is that he has no label and is not signed. Why would he? His web site says the following; "Always looking for ways to grow as an artist, Tay Zonday moves a day at a time into a future filled with possibility." He seems to be doing just great doing what he is doing. Tay seems to have a grasp on how the Internet has already changed music. He and bands like Weezer are capitalizing on it. I only wish the RIAA would get the message.

Seems like Tay is going to further capitalize on his "viral video" success. He is now, according to this story at Mashable doing a live uStream show. Rumor has it, he may even do his famous viral Chocolate Rain live! Tay, if you happen to read this, I want to hear Internet Dream.

I first heard of the auto maker over at Valleywag. Seems the Governor of California gave a tax break to the company. The article points out that the former Terminator can look pro-business, pro-environment and anti-tax all at once. Nonetheless, I feel that it is a good thing and California gets a plant out of the deal.

(Interesting side note. I also noticed in one of the comments that Schwarzenegger was going to convert a vehicle to hydrogen.)

By now I was curious enough to check out the Tesla Site. Pretty kewl stuff. All I could find was information on the Roadster. I did not yet know there was more. The roadster is a sleek looking car and, according to the site, can go from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds.

I looked over the Tesla Site a bit and decided share it here. When I thought I was done, I returned to my feeds. Mr. Scoble had put this post up. He plans to buy a Tesla Sedan. One of his reasons is that he can go 200 miles on 3 dollars of electricity. Wow! If true, he is also right that it is a huge dent in the gas budget.

Granted the cars are expensive. As many of the commenters pointed out, Mr. Scoble is also a consumer Guinea Pig. I think he is being both bold and noble. One of Mr. Scoble’s reasons is very true. He is casting an economic vote with his dollars. I wonder, with oil prices, the economy and all other factors, is this possibly the beginning of a trend? I mean in the sense that a company may actually succeed in this niche market? Are we at or nearing what they call a "tipping point"? How often is Mr. Scoble right? (I think pretty darn often.)

I do not have the knowledge to really speculate or analyze this matter. I confess that I feel it is positive news and would love to see a whole lot of those roadsters. I am also rather certain that the two last names mentioned in the headlines have now increased awareness of this company. Hopefully that means more news on them in my feeds. Maybe more tax breaks for similar companies? Maybe electric buses for cities? Does the average consumer have the confidence in hybrids and such to now invest in one? I don’t know. I still think it is pretty exciting. I wrote this in the manner I did so that people would see it and comment. Thanks for reading.

A few years back I was pretty impressed when Chris Pirillo mentioned Stellarium but when Mashable announced that World Wide Telescope was available. I immediately downloaded it. Folks if you haven’t tried this one yet, you must give this program a look.

I am far from an expert stargazer but I have played with Stellarium, Google Sky and, for a few days, World Wide Telescope. Kudos to Microsoft for best of the three.

Even on my resource deprive AMD Athlon 2800, it functions pretty darn good. I takes a brief second or so for zooms to focus but I find the effect adding to realism and you can adjust the zoom and sharpness in the settings. The interface is easy to use, works great with my four button trackball and, most of all, it is fun.

Thanks for reading. I am off to virtual star gaze.

Mr. Clarke was an author of great merit whose titles included 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010, and Rendezvous with Rama.

Mr. Clarke is also know for his Three Laws of Prediction and is credited with being the visionary behind the communication satellite. The prime geostationary orbits that these satellites use are referred to as the Clarke Belt in his honor.

I got news of via this article over at Slashdot. If you have not been following this case you can catch up on it at this article (which was mentioned in the Slashdot article). If you really want to seriously read on this topic, you can look over all the online documents here. If you are interested in this topic, to bookmark and/or subscribe to Recording Industry vs. The People. In my opinion, it is the best one stop web resource for the topic of the RIAA and the lawsuit campaign.

I am not 100 percent certain but I think this was my first rant on the RIAA. Exios and I over at Radiostatic.am have also had many a dialog on this topic over the years. I am also old enough to remember when they tried to make blank audio cassettes illegal. In my opinion, this news is potentially best news for the consumer in the time I have been following it. I thought I might hit on a three of the reasons why I think this is so.

First and foremost, this may help to curb the massive number of "sham" lawsuits or "spamigation" filed against individuals. According to Wikipedia, they have settled about 2500 cases. AThis report (PDF File) by the Electronic Frontier Foundation published in August 2007, states over 20,000 individuals have been involved and they are targeting 400 college students per month. There is much debate over what the actual numbers are.

Is think the logic is that the RIAA knows that the average college student can not afford legal resources for a defense but, because they can afford college, they can afford the average 3-5 thousand dollar settlement? The college niche they are targeting is also the market they target with their advertisements as well. One of the major focuses of the organization is to sue one of the markets they target for sales? I hope and pray this ends before they start going after the retirement funds of the elderly.

I might be being a bit harsh on my previous point and, to remain fair, I should point out that nobody is immune from. Tanya Andersen is not the only single mom involved in this PC to PC witch hunt. Heck, they have even sued the dead, people who do not have internet or a PC and, if suing you fails, they just move on to your children. Also, I could not find not find any incidents of them sueing the family pet, perhaps they are fearful of PETA.

The RIAA has already admitted in public statement that they will catch a "dolphin" when using a "driftnet". In other words, they admit they hit a few innocents in there gathering process. What is lacking is any kind of statement as to how many are actually guilty. The RIAA does not attempt to actually go to trial. They have even used "settlement centers"e;.

The second possible good thing that may come out of this process is that the very method of how the RIAA obtains these names may be ceased. The RIAA is, more or less, checking every PC they can. Also under question is the standing of the investigative company hired by the RIAA. It is alleged that the company was not licensed in Oregon and other states.

I have two real issues with the methodology of the RIAA in gathering such name. The largest being is that they are NOT a law enforcement agency. They are, in fact, and association representing the four major labels and many smaller ones. They claim control 90% of the music released in the USA. I have had many a conversation on IRC, VOIP, the phone, and at local restaurants on this topic. To date, no one has given me any reason why this should not fall under RICO laws. They are in effect, sharing legal resources and legal information.

The second issue is one of my rights as an American Citizen. Assume for a moment that we take the RIAA and deputize them. Also assume we know of a certain neighborhood which is overrun with crime and drugs. Would our now deputized organization have the right to go into the neighborhood and search each dwelling? How is this any different that drift netting? In my mind, the method would be legally questionable even if they were law enforcement agents.

The final thing is that the RIAA and their associates will have to do much explaining regarding all of the above. They are going to have to explain how much of this goes to the artist, how much goes to the attorneys, why they have dismissed cases admitting the case had no merit and continued to use the same methods to create more cases, and how much is going to other things.

I really have to watch this one in reference to how much goes to the artist and songwriter. They can specifically reference the artists and songwriters that were robbed of royalties. Can they document how much of the infringement collections were forwarded to them? If they are the "Copyright Crusaders", as they claim to be, would that not be producing such documentation be the most expedient route to vindication?

They spent $650,000 in lobbying in the first half of 2007 alone. At the same time, they want to reduce the royalties to songwriters? I can’t find any information on royalties paid to artists and songwriters vs. amount collected. As great as these guys are at math, watching this unfold is going to be as funny as this Weird Al Video.

Thanks for reading and let us all see what the next RIAA trick is.

According to this Wired News Article, The RIAA actually tried to attempt to contact the eight-year old daughter at school and deceptively gain one on one access to the child. If the case proceeds it might mean the the RIAA would have to disclose how they obtain evidence and decide who to sue. could this mean that they would have to use licensed investigators?

Now if you have ever heard my opinion on the RIAA, you would know that I feel a better description of this self appointed police force is the Racketeering Idiots Association of Absurdity. What has bothered me about them the most is the hypocritical rational and gestapo-like approach of the organization. Perhaps I am being to harsh with the word gestapo but they are, at the least, bullies. I don’t like bullies. Kudos to the single mom fighting back in this case.

Gone are the days when the RIAA managed to assure the audio quality of the recordings, mastering engineering techniques so that your needle didn’t skip and the bass sounded right. It was the only format we had then, they had to perfect it. Enter the days of attempting to force the consumer to use one type of DRMed media and suing fans. they no longer attempt to assure quality for the consumer but now attempt toe tell the consumer, what they can listen too, how much they pay for it and what they can listen to it on… Big brother with really bad taste.

This case may actually bring to light what I have felt has been going on right along. It may reveal some questionable, even "potentially incriminating" tactics and according to the second article webbalert mentions, has the potential to lead to a class action lawsuit.

Another thing that always puzzled me and others have tried to explain to me and failed is why the RIAA is not actually guilty of RICO violations. Seems this case also has charges around that in it as well. Nonetheless, if this case proceeds to discovery it will, at the least, make a bad looking organization look only worse.

Some of the things that this article claims the RIAA will have to explain are very interesting as well. They include:

• How much does an RIAA Lawyer earn? Seriously, how do you justify any attorney’s salary?
• Justification for the average $4-5K. Is blatant greed not enough?
• How it picks it victims. Oh, I am not saying that well. Let me quote the article… "How it decides which file sharers to sue, and which ones not to sue". Here I thought they just checked for a college fund, maybe there is an actual method?
• "Where the settlement money goes (i.e. whether any of it makes it to the artists)". I think this one is going to be the best one to read about. An industry that created the term "starving artist", is going to have to draft a pretty convincing argument on this one. Maybe Metallica will share the bank account deposit information with us?

My initial thoughts are that this may work out well. That is, if is prohibits tactics I suspect the RIAA is using. My next thought though is if they cared little for ethics in the first place, is a court decision going to be a real determent? Maybe they will just drop the facade and simply admit that they are just a bunch of greedy racketeers who intend to instill fear into the masses? Heck your honor, it is not like they want our product anymore, how else do we make em buy it?

Gary was 69 and is survived by his wife and six children. Gary Gygax is actually survived by many many more. I am one of the geeks that spent countless hours as an adolescent as a dungeon master and as a player. His creative mind co-created a game that impacted, at the least, 10s of thousands and, more likely, 100s of thousands. I passed the passion on to my kid brother who still is very into the gaming scene and is actually a judge for Magic tournaments.

The original game was all paper and pencil and role-playing. I loved it. I spent entire weekends in marathon sessions. Before the advent of readily accessible PC games, it was the game. Latter in life, I also got very into the Commodore 64 versions that were release. When Mr. Gygax passed I did a bit of digging in my feeds and discovered something interesting. Did you know that the word w00t actually evolved out of this game?

I have read a great number of posts over the years. I have such an addiction for computers and Internet content that many people have suggested I need a 12 step program for my passion. I read feeds, blog at several sites, chat, leave comments, constantly listen to podcast and who knows what else I will add to the list. Leo Laporte has talked about being blessed by living in this "Golden Age". Amy Gahran has talked about us transcending the Information Age and entering the Connectivity Era. She has also written much about the fact that we are no longer involved in one way sputtering out of monologue but conversation. Recently some conversation has come about regarding comments, both in general and, more relevant here, the problem of tracking them.

Now toss on your favorite tie-dye T-shirt, bell bottoms and travel with me back to 1970. Alvin Toffler publishes Future Shock and into our vocabulary enters the term information overload. I checked the book out of the library in 2006 and re-read certain areas of it. 36 years after publication it rings true in a prophetic manner. How do we manage all of this and how do we sort through the data smog? More specifically, how do we even manage what we write, read and wish to follow?

Amy Gahran stated that she has a pipe dream regarding this issue. Jack Vinson agrees with the wish and offered a few potential solutions.

I am not here with solutions. I am a web addict and have learned much over the years. Regrettably, the reason I have learned so much is because I learn from my mistakes and I am really, really good at making mistakes. I am hastily trying to finish this before I head off to work so that I might have some more feedback by the time I return home. I have about 4 minutes left.

A few days ago I learned about some things via Scoble. He mentioned that testing out CoComments. Now he is saying that he can’t recommend it. I must agree. Mr. Scoble also had something to say about potential of Facebook. I don’t know, I am very new to Facebook but I like to hear that it has such potential.

So what do you all think? Anyone know of any solutions?

I really wonder how the actual artist, Prince, feels about it? He is pretty savvy about re-inventing himself and marketing. The alleged "copyright infringement" is adorably cute. I wonder how many record sales were nixed because people decided the 29-second clip was better than a bona fide copy of the song now over a decade old?

My thought is that the "crazy" one is the idiot who decided it was time to contact YouTube and have it yank the video… The mom was just sharing something cute with others and, in my opinion, giving it some pretty awesome promotion to boot.

[tags] YouTube, DMCA, EFF, Fair Use, Freedom of Speech, Universal, Dancing Baby Video, Prince, Copyright[/tags]

Yesterday, I put a post here that was largely inspired by the comment of a reader on an earlier rant. Before I even conclude the first paragraph, I thank all of you for commenting and the compliments on my article.

Yesterday’s rant had several good comments. One of them left by marc was, in my opinion, as good as my post. Thanks for the feedback marc. Marc, I agree with you almost entirely with the exception of your first point. (marc stated that he prefers CDs to MP3s)

I feel you are 100% correct in the assertion that CDs are higher quality audio. This is almost always the case. I have a collection of Beethoven’s complete symphonies on CD. I have yet to rip them to MP3 and doubt I ever will. I listen to them on my old Technics stereo. For Beethoven, I think it matters but if I am going to listen to some dude scream at the top of his lungs about how mad he is at an ex-lover accompanied by a guitarist whose trademark is an amp that goes to 11 and a drummer who smashes titanium laced drum skins does it really matter that much?

I, however, have few CDs remaining and, as quickly as I can, I am archiving my hundreds of cassettes to MP3. You are also right that it is about the music. For me, it is about the portability and accessibility of the music.

At one point in my life I used to buy between 5 and 20 albums per week. Most of what I bought was cassette. The reason being is that, at the time, I was an avid jogger and willing sacrificed the quality for portability. I think that is largely what is going on today with music sales. Heck, check out the new feature on this Volkswagen.

Ten years ago I had a wall lined with CDs and cassettes. When I wanted to listen to tune, I put the media in the player and switched the speakers to the appropriate room. Today, I have 10 gig of legal music on my hard drive. I also have a PC in every room in my loft except the bathroom. No need to goe anywhere except the appropriate folder on my hard drive. No wall of material, no clutter and yes, lower quality but, for me, prefered.

I also agree with you on the extras you get with a CD but I think that the very format of the CD, due to its size, has cheapened that. I remember in the old days of vinyl, putting headphones on, kicking back and reading all the album credits while enjoying the music. I am sorry marc, but the microprint on a CD jewel sleeve just doesn’t do it for me. Remember all of the kewl inserts that came with the Beatles "White Album"? (By the way all… I should put some of this into time perspective for you. I remember standing in line with my mother, six years old at the time, to get a copy of "Abbey Road" the day it was release… yeah, it was for me.)

My reasons for not desiring CDs have more to do with a political and economic choice. The last RIAA label CD I bought was Thomas Dolby’s "Astronuats and Heratics". I bought it the day it came out. (BTW, if any of you are into the MTV pop star he is touring the states. Also, Lumpy trivia tidbit, likely you are familiar with this artist. He may well be the sound you hear on your cell phone.)

My choice for podsafe and MP3 today is because I agree with Trent Razor and BNL. If I am paying 30-40 bucks for an album, it should be my right to make a personal copy and playing it on my PC should not corrupt my hard drive. (Furthermore reading the credits should not be more painful than a vision test.) To me buying a CD today makes about as much sense as popping a rufinol and entering a cage with a sex-deprive guerilla. I also agree that there are larger problems in the world but I am tired of being ripped off by an industry that rips off everyone but their executives. Heck, if it weren’t for the recording industry, would we even have the term "starving artist"?

I think today’s trends in music have more to do with portability and consumers disgruntled over price and DRM. Although CDs still out sell legal downloads, the trend is clearly going the other way now. As legal downloading becomes more popular, I would suspect that higher quality downloads will become more popular as well. Such as this.

Now marc, as far as your other three points… maybe I will use them for future writing motivation. Lastly, thanks for the well thought and penned comment marc. I hope you do not take anything I said in this post as offensive. I appreciate the conversation that you and others have created by commenting. Your comment alone gave me at least four specific items I can expand on. (Seriously, marc you drafted that comment well, you should think about writing here.)

Again, thanks for reading.